The Living Room Times

I’m talking, of course, about the Whole Foods Boycott. Okay, that wasn’t obvious from the headline, but it is a wonderful example of things that make you go: well you aren’t wrong, per se. but you also aren’t making a lot of sense. I’ve not found a big organized site for the boycott. Though some background here. And of course the WSJ OPED that started this mess..

There was a group of the boycott contingent outside my local Whole Foods at lunch today (It’s a block from my office, they are kind of hard to miss). They were complete with flyers video cameras and sign boards so I’m thinking there is some organization to this thing.

This is one of those things were I agree with them on the only semi factual point of this issue: I disagree with what the CEO of the company said in the WSJ OPED. I also think that what he said wasn’t too smart from a business perspective. Let’s face it most of the market for Whole Foods is the left. But the boycott response makes no sense to me.

First, the company cannot legally fire him for what he said in the OPED. He wasn’t speaking for the company as a matter of corporate policy. He was speaking for himself as a citizen engaging in the debate on health care. I can’t imagine that him suddenly discovering that a large and vocal subset of his customers support the health care plan will make him change his mind on the issue, just for finding out that they support it.

Second, the company should not fire him for what he said. We live in a country that engages in a marketplace of ideas. One’s political beliefs or positions shouldn’t have any impact on one’s employment prospects (unless of course your employment is directly political). If I’m applying I don’t want my political positions questioned unless it directly relates to me doing the job I’m applying for. One would think Democrats, as the group that is generally anti establishment, would not want a business climate in which being of a particular political persuasion should be a firing offense. It simply is not nor should it be relevant.

Third, the boycott hurts the employees of Whole Foods for something that is not a corporate policy about political speech made by someone that happens to be their CEO as his day job. The Disney boycotts back in the 90s at least made some sense as they were about a corporate policy. The boycott, on the other hand, has little to no direct impact on the person that made the statement. And isn’t over a matter of corporate policy, just about what their CEO said.

Fourth, refute the statements he made and directly support health care reform if that’s what you stand for. It is a better use of your time and resources than trying to promote an ineffectual boycott against something because of an OPED. Which if you support the ideas upon which the country is based makes more sense.

Am I missing something here? Is there something that makes the boycott of Whole Foods make some sort of logical sense? Is the boycott contingent really saying that we should hold a publicly traded company directly responsible for the political speech of one of their executives. And that we should expect him to be fired for that political speech? It just seems like there is something fundamentally wrong with that to me. I mean I admit I’m upset and annoyed by what the he said. And I think he is wrong. But then I thought about it and I just cannot see how boycotting the company is an appropriate response to this.